Muir v Commissioner of Inland Revenue

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal by Dr Garry Albert Muir against the decision of Venning J to decline to recuse himself from hearing an application for substantial non-party legal costs against Dr Muir arising from significant tax litigation. Dr Muir argued that Venning J should stand aside on the basis that he had a direct financial interest in the litigation and was within the legal test for "apparent bias". Venning J had declined to recuse himself, and Dr Muir appealed that decision. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that Venning J was not required to recuse himself. The Court of Appeal found that Venning J's financial interest in the litigation did not constitute presumptive bias, and that there was no evidence to support the claim that Venning J was within the legal test for apparent bias. The Court of Appeal also found that there was no basis for disturbing Venning J's decision to sit, given his findings that Dr Muir was not credible and had not been candid in his evidence. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, with the Commissioner to have costs of $6,000 and usual disbursements.